<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">It is much easier and cheaper to put up
150+Mb/s links!<br>
<br>
Mark<br>
KC5EVE<br>
On 8/17/2016 10:34 PM, Robert Bruninga via aprssig wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CALdCfNKxwgXR6sBzq9gtZXQNKFfDEEmfNoy8d3TPMzzi_Ap7Jg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>We are dreaming of a 9600 baud East coasst packet
backbone along the route of the APRS Golden Packet
event. <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://aprs.org/ec9600net.html">http://aprs.org/ec9600net.html</a><br>
<br>
</div>
I wonder if the 5W 220 MHz HT featured in QST this month
would make a possible radio. Many of these sites are
high and adjacent to plenty of VHF and UHF commercial
rigs.<br>
<br>
</div>
Does that mean the 220 MHz is relatively free of front end
overload at most commercial sites?<br>
</div>
Could just a simple 1/4 wave coax stub bring the RF levels
down to workable levels?<br>
<br>
</div>
The radios are 5W and show 0.16uv sensitivity for $85. Moving
the backbone to 220 coiuld then allow either 2m or UHF for
local user access to the backbone. I had wanted 50W rigs for
the 10 dB margin, but maybe 5W will do some of the links. <br>
<br>
I have zero experience with 220, so I thought I would ask
here.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>What is the channel we can use on 220 band for 9600 baud
packet?<br>
<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
Bob, WB4APR<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
aprssig mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:aprssig@tapr.org">aprssig@tapr.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig">http://www.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>